The Hawaiian gazette., 1887-11-22

Torrance Of q part of them the right
rests; and this is essential TO its
protection under the Statute; but
other acts are to be done, unless
Congress have legislated in vain, to
render the right perfect. The notice
could not be published until after
the entry with the clerk, nor could
the book be deposited with the
Secretary of State until it was pub
lished. But these acts are not less
important than those which are re-
quired to be done previously. They
form part of the title, and until
they are performed the title is not
perfect"
We notice that the language of
our Copyright Act is identical with
that of the United States as respects
the part quoted, and was probably
copied from it. This view has been
taken in the case of Ever VS.. Coke,
1 Wash. c. c. Repts. 4S7, uS2D
and has been followed by the Federal
Courts of the United States since
Wheaton vs.. Peters. In the Circuit
Court of the United States, District
of Columbia, Parkinson vs.. Laselle, 8
Sawyer 331, the Court say, "It is
settled by the Supreme Court in
Wheaton, rs. Peters, S Peters 591, that
every act required by the act of
Congress of May 3, 1890, q Stat.
124) and of April %, 1902, q Stat.
I'D relative TO copyrights, is essen
tial TO the title derived under those
acts. Unless he performs every act
required by these Statutes the author
acquires no exclusive right"
We feel quite safe in adopting this
construction, sustained as it is by
such high authority. Our Statute
says that " no person shall be entitled
to the benefit Of this Act mIeSs he
shall do certain prescribed acts.
These are essential to the completion
of the title to the work sought to be
judicially protected. The remaining
question is, has the plaintiff shown
Statutory publication?
We think he has.-The Statute
does not prescribe that the publica-
ton shall be made in a daily news
paper for the space of two months.
1t is 4 matter of common know
ledge that in 1879 and 1880, no
daily newspapers were published in
this Kingdom. This was also true
in 1864 when the Copyright Act was
passed. The publication in the Ha-
traiiaJl Gazette appeared in every
one of its numbers that was issued
for the space of the two months
which began with the first publica-
ton on December 3, 1879, and ended
on February 1880. The last issue of
the Gazette within this period, was
on the 2Sth day of January. The
next issue thereafter was on the 4th
of February, which is beyond the
space of two months. Publication
after the space of two months is
outside of the requirements of the
law and unnecessary.
We think that, although the plain
tiff to secure his title to the work
should show a compliance with all
the requisites of the law, the Court
is bound to give Il reasonable and
liberal construction to the law pre-
Scribing these requirements.
This strict rule of construction
adopted by this Court in Sylvia VS..
Lopez should not be applied to this
case.
In that case the parties contracted
that a forfeiture should be worked
and rights of property transferred
upon the Mortgages making certain
prescribed publications.
In the case Of Meyers vs.. CalIag-
han 10 Bissell 139, Cited in %
Myers Federal Decisions, Sec. 207)
the Court held that q the various
provisions of the law in relation to
copyright should have a liberal con-
struction in order to give effect to
what may be considered the inhe-
rent right of an author to his own
work.
So when a person has in good faith
attempted to comply with the copy
right Act of 1881, the fact that The
notice Of the copyright stated that
the book was entered in lSG6 when
in fact it was entered in 1867 was
held not to vitiate the copyright
But these observations are not neces-
Sary, since We hold that the publica.
ton of notice of copyright made in
every number of a weekly news |
paper that is issued during the space |
of two months is a compliance of the
Statute.
For this reason the case must be
reinstated and the plaintiff allowed |
TO proceed with his proofs 4
Case remanded TO the Court below |
for further proceedings in accord
ance with this view.
L. A. Thurston for Plaintiff; w.
s WHITING for Dafpudaut-